Notices. Notice of Prospective Patent License

20,466 words·~93 min read·/register/2005/12/21/05-24320

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,377] E.I. Dupont Victoria, TX; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on November 18, 2005 in response to a worker petition filed by the Texas Work Force Commission on behalf of workers at E.I. DuPont, Victoria, Texas. The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of December, 2005 Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5-7608 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-50,129 and TA-W-50,129A] IBM Corporation, Global Services Division, Piscataway, NJ; IBM Corporation, Global Services Division, Middletown, NJ; Notice of Negative Determination on Remand The United States Court of International Trade (USCIT) remanded to the Department of Labor (Labor) for further investigation *Former Employees of IBM Corporation, Global Services Division* v. *U.S.

Secretary of Labor,* Court No. 03-00656. The USCIT's Order was issued on August 1, 2005. A petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), dated November 13, 2002, was filed on behalf of workers at IBM Corporation, Global Services Division, Piscataway and Middletown, New Jersey (the subject firm). The petitioning workers had been employed by AT&T and had handled the same responsibilities for IBM, after being outsourced by AT&T to IBM in 2000. In the petition, the workers alleged that the subject firm was shifting computer software production to Canada and importing those products from Canada.

Upon institution of the petition on November 19, 2002, the Department conducted an investigation to determine whether the subject workers were eligible to apply for TAA. The relevant period for purposes of the investigation was determined to be November 2001 through November 2002. For workers of the subject firm to be certified as eligible to apply for TAA, the following criteria must be met:

(1)A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; *and*

(2)The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely, imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased, and the increase in imports contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in the sales or production of such firm or subdivision; *or*

(3)There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign country of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and the country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States, is a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act or there has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. 29 U.S.C. Section 222 The investigation revealed that the workers were engaged in the analysis and maintenance of computer software and information systems (identifying product requirements, developing network solutions, and writing software). The Department determined that the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. The Department's determination was issued on March 26, 2003. The Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on April 7, 2003 (68 FR 16834). By application of April 29, 2003, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for TAA. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner alleged that the workers did produce an article and argued that the denial was the result of an overly narrow and antiquated interpretation of production by the Department. The Department reviewed the petitioner's request for reconsideration and affirmed that the workers did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 222 of the Trade Act. Prior to making the determination, the Department reviewed the legislative intent of the TAA program as well as the language of the Trade Act. The Department also reviewed the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) and the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), and sought guidance from the U.S. Customs Service (Customs). On June 26, 2003, the Department issued a Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration. The Department's Notice of determination was published in the **Federal Register** on July 15, 2003 (68 FR 41845). By letter dated September 11, 2003, the Plaintiffs requested judicial review by the USCIT, asserting that the workers of the subject firm produced an article within the meaning of the Trade Act and characterizing the Department's basis for denying certification for the subject workers as irrational. The USCIT's August 1, 2005 Order directed the Department to

(1)further investigate the nature of the software produced by the Plaintiffs, including whether the software was embodied in any kind of physical medium,

(2)explain the differences between the activities performed by the Plaintiffs and those performed by other petitioners involved in developing software who had received TAA benefits in the past, and

(3)explain and support the Department's position with respect to the characterization of the software at issue as an article or a service. Remand Investigation Findings During the remand investigation, the Department obtained additional information and clarification, from two subject firm officials, SAR 1, 2-6, 19-42, 48-50, 57-59, 62-67, 70-73, and Plaintiffs, SAR 1, 7-18, 42-47, 51-56, 60-61, 68-69 and position descriptions of the petitioning workers. SAR 22-42. The Department also conducted a conference call with subject firm officials to clarify a technical matter regarding the software. SAR 1. Further, the Department took action to reconcile conflicting information. SAR 73. In order to determine whether the Plaintiffs engaged in activities which constitute production, the Department requested that the Plaintiffs and the subject firm provide the Department with information about the workers' functions, and copies of the workers position descriptions. SAR 4, 8. Information regarding the workers' functions was received from all three Plaintiffs. SAR 17, 43, 53. According to the Plaintiffs, the separated workers were Information Technology

(IT)Specialists, SAR 17, 43, 53, who identified software program specifications, created source code, generated unit and string testing, and ensured that system input and processing were accurate. SAR 17, 18, 43, 52, 53. The software and source code were stored in disk drives (also known as a Direct Access Storage Device) at a mainframe data center located at the client's facility and were “viewable on remote terminals.” Workers could access the software and code regardless of where they were stored. Corrections were made by “changing the source code and compiled software that reside on the Direct Access Storage Devices.” SAR 54, 55. “Back-ups of programs were also kept on tapes and CDs * * * Code was delivered on the shared directories of hard drives, where it could be accessed by those who needed to view or test. CDs were also used in some instances.” SAR 66. Information provided by the subject firm, including the various position descriptions which account for a significant majority of the displaced workers, confirms that the workers were IT Specialists, with various levels of expertise, who provided services and assisted in the construction, implementation, and integration of software systems. More senior workers may also have identified new IT services opportunities and developed tools and methods for managing, analyzing, designing and implementing IT solutions. SAR 22-42. Nature of the Software Produced by the Plaintiffs Software consists of source code (text written by software developers commanding the computer to do a certain task) and object code (text written in the language of the computer which enables the computer to execute the command, hence, also known as the execution file). The object code operates as a ciphering key because, without the proper object code, the source code cannot be executed. In some instances where computers cannot interface, an object code may be required to read or translate another object code before the source code can be executed. The software at issue is client (AT&T) legacy (old, pre-existing) mainframe software and midrange software for network applications and systems (software used to run and repair the client's older systems), SAR 1, 20, and was designed to operate on the client's mainframe computers. SAR 17, 52, 53, 55. The software could be accessed remotely by the workers. SAR 55, 66, 73. The source code at issue was not provided to the client on a physical medium. The information initially provided regarding whether the software was embodied on a physical medium appeared to be inconsistent. According to a Plaintiff, Mr. Plumeri, “[t]he code was stored on either mainframe, Windows or Unix based servers. Backups of programs were also kept on tapes and CDs * * * Code was delivered on the shared directories of hard drives, where it could be accessed by those who needed to view or test. CDs were also used in some instances.” SAR 66. The other two Plaintiffs, Mr. Fusco and Ms. Berger, stated that the “software, since it was designed to run on mainframe computers, was embodied on the disk drives” in the client's off-site data center. SAR 17, 52, 54. The subject firm, moreover, stated that the software was electronically stored and delivered to the client's internal servers and the software is not embodied or delivered to AT&T in any kind of physical medium. SAR 20, 71. In order to reconcile the apparent conflict, the Department contacted the subject firm for an explanation. SAR 1, 73. According to the subject firm, source code and documentation related to the development of the software at issue is stored in and shared through an internal server, and while back-up copies are saved on CD, the CDs are not shared with the client. SAR 73. The subject firm officials also explained that the CDs presented to the client contained only those documents, such as billing invoices and work schedules, generated for contract administration purposes, along with the object code the client needed to access the business documents. In that very narrow regard, there was software sent from the subject firm to the client through a physical medium. However, that software was not source code and was not related to the software that was produced by the former employees and transmitted electronically to the client. There was no software reduced to a physical medium for the purpose of serving the *client.* SAR 73. Differences Between Activities Performed by the Plaintiffs and Those Performed by Software Development Petitioners Who Received TAA Benefits in the Past Information provided for the record by the Plaintiffs and the subject firm substantiated that the workers were IT Specialists performing software design and implementation activities (software architecture, systems engineering, design, development, coding, testing, installing and product support). SAR 17, 21, 43, 52, 53. The record evidence does not indicate that the workers were engaged in production or the support of production of an article at an affiliated facility. The Department's practice of certifying non-production workers who support an affiliated domestic production facility has been consistent. In past cases where petitioners involved in developing software were certified as eligible to apply for TAA, the workers supported an affiliated domestic production facility. For example, recently, the Department certified software writers in *Former Workers of Ericsson, Inc* . v. *Elaine Chao, United States Secretary of Labor* (Court No. 02-00809). In *Ericsson* , the workers wrote software code which was embodied on a physical medium (CD-Rom). The CD-Rom was mass-produced at an affiliated, domestic facility and then distributed to customers. The workers of the subject firm were certified because they supported an affiliated domestic production facility whose workers independently qualified for TAA (mass-production of the CD-Rom shifted to a qualifying country). The record, as fully developed on remand, strongly supports the conclusion that the Plaintiffs did not meet the criteria satisfied in *Ericsson* and related software cases. Therefore, the Department properly determined that the plaintiffs were not eligible to apply for TAA benefits. Department's Position With Respect to the Characterization of the Software at Issue as an Article or as a Service While the Trade Act does not include a definition of “article” among the definitions applicable to the TAA program, the term is integral to making TAA determinations and, as such, the Department has given the meaning of “article” considerable thought. The USCIT has recognized that, as used in the Trade Act, the term “article” embraces a tangible commodity. *See Nagy* v. *Donovan* , 571 F. Supp 1261, 1263 (CIT 1983). This position was recently supported in *Former Employees of Gale Group, Inc* . v. *U.S. Secretary of Labor* , Court No. 04-00374, 2005 WL 3088605 * 5 (November 18, 2005) and *Former Employees of Merrill Corp* . v. *U.S. Department of Labor* , 389 F. Supp.2d 1326, 1342-1343 (CIT 2005). *In Gale Group* , the USCIT held that workers who “performed electronic indexing services” were not eligible for TAA benefits, because they did not produce an article for the purposes of 19 U.S.C. 2272(a)(2)(B). *Gale Group* * 4. Further, the USCIT held that the denial of TAA benefits was a reasonable interpretation supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law, notwithstanding plaintiffs' arguments that other sources of law (i.e., the American Job Creation Act of 2004; various state tax cases; and determinations by the International Trade Commission

(ITC)under the ITC's Trade Act § 337 authority to protect intellectual property) could support a ruling in their favor. Trade Act § 337 was amended in 1988, for the express purpose making it “broad enough to prevent every type and form of unfair practice.” S. Rep. 595, 67th Congress, 2d Session, at 3. Therefore, it was foreseeable that the ITC, applying that expanded remedial authority, would find that it was not limited to acts that occur during the physical process of importation. For example, the ITC has held that, while the Commission “accommodates, where possible, the policies and views of [the U.S.] Customs [Service] (which “has determined not to regulate electronic transmissions”),” there were circumstances where it was “appropriate to reach such importations.” *In Re Certain Hardware Logic Emulation Systems and Components Thereof* , USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-383, 1998 WL 307240, page 11 (March 1998). Trade Act § 222, which controls the present proceeding, has not undergone any such amendment. Indeed, there have been several recent legislative efforts (most recently in June 2005) to amend the Trade Act so that it does cover service workers as well as production workers. However, those efforts, to date, have been unsuccessful. Thus, the Department's disposition of the present case is properly controlled by existing Trade Act § 222, under which the Department applies the HTSUS to require that an “article” be a tangible object, not by the ITC's application of its broad Trade Act § 337 authority in intellectual property cases. Throughout the Trade Act, an “article” is referenced as something that can be subject to a duty. Telecommunications transmissions (including electronically transmitted software code) are specifically exempted from duty as they are not goods subject to the provisions of the HTSUS General Note 3(I). Because the software code at issue is electronically manipulated and delivered to the client only in an electronic form, the Plaintiffs do not produce an article. *See* , *e.g.* , *Former Employees of Dendrite International* , 70 FR 21247-3 (April 25, 2005). Plaintiffs Argue That the Department's Interpretation of “article” is Overly Narrow The Department's interpretation of “article” to require a tangible state is consistent with Congressional intent and supported by legislative history of the Trade Act. The Trade Act was designed to counteract the effects of imports upon the manufacturing sector and other labor-intensive industries. *See* S. Rep. No. 1298, 93rd Cong. (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.A.N. 7186. Since Congress took explicit legislative action to set criteria for TAA eligibility, any expansion of Trade Act's scope should be the result of legislation. Further, the Department is obligated to be faithful to the legislative will and is bound to the language of the statute. *See Machine Printers and Engravers Ass'n* v. *Marshall* , 595 F.2d 860, (D.C. Cir. 1979). As already noted, while legislation has been proposed that would expand the scope of the Trade Act to include service workers such as the plaintiffs, to date, no such amendment has been adopted. The Department's reliance on the HTSUS to exclude the plaintiffs from eligibility is appropriate. *See Former Employees of Murray Engineering* v. *Chao* , 358 F. Supp.2d 1269, 1272 n.7 (CIT 2005) (“the language of the Act clearly indicates that the HTSUS governs the definition of articles, as it repeatedly refers to “articles” as “items subject to a duty”); HTS, General Note 3(I) (exempting “telecommunications transmissions” from “goods subject to the provisions of the [HTSUS]”). For the Department to abandon the use of the HTSUS and abrogate its current practice would be inappropriate unless the Department had an adequate substitute, such as one contained in the Code of Federal Regulations. The Department's treatment of service (including software) cases and its requirement that articles be tangible has been consistent. Service workers may be certified only if they directly support production of an article. Under the Department's methodology, non-production workers may be eligible for TAA certification as “support service workers” if:

(1)Their separation was caused importantly by a reduced demand for their services from a parent firm, a firm otherwise related to the subject firm by ownership, or a firm related by control;

(2)The reduction in the demand for their services originated at a production facility whose workers independently met the statutory criteria for certification; and

(3)The reduction directly related to the product impacted by imports. *Former Employees of Henderson Sewing Mach.* v. *United States* , 265 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1359 (CIT 2003) (citing *Former Employees of Chevron Prods. Co.* v. *United States Sec'y of Labor* , 245 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1328-29 (CIT 2002) (citing *Bennett* v. *U.S. Sec'y of Labor* , 20 CIT 788, 792 (1996); *Abbott* v. *Donovan* , 570 F. Supp. 41, 49 (1983))). The Court in *Henderson Sewing* sustained the Department's interpretation of the statute to preclude certification of petitioners as support service workers in the instance where no production employee independently qualified for certification. *Id* . at n.16. (citing *Abbott* , 570 F. Supp. at 49 (citing *Woodrum* , 564 F. Supp. 826) (“the Court must accord substantial deference to the interpretation of the statute [19 U.S.C. 2272(a)] by the agency [Labor] charged with its administration”); *Bennett* , 20 CIT at 792 (stating in pertinent part that “plaintiff[s] are eligible for certification [as support service workers] when * * * their separation is caused by a reduced demand for their services from a production department whose workers independently meet the statutory criteria for certification” and holding that “Labor permissibly and reasonably interpreted [19 U.S.C. 2272(a)] in formulating the test for certifying support service workers”). The Department has consistently determined that workers engaged in the design and development of software may be certified if they support an affiliated, domestic firm at which workers are engaged in producing a trade-impacted “article.” *See* , *e.g.* , *Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance* in: *Ericsson, Inc., Messaging Group, Woodbury, N.Y.* , 68 FR 8619-8621 (TA-W-50,446) (Feb. 24, 2003); *Computer Sciences Corporation at Dupont Corporation* , 67 FR 10767 (TA-W-39,535) (March 8, 2002); *e-Gain Communications Corporation, Novato California* , 68 FR 50195 (TA-W-51,001) (Aug. 20, 2003). Workers in these cases were certified based, in part, upon a finding that the subject facilities produced hardware or software embodied in some tangible format. Workers in the case at hand, however, do not directly support certifiable production workers eligible for TAA benefits, and this distinction explains the different results in cases involving workers engaged in similar activity. While the case results may differ, based on the particular facts of each case, the Department's application of the statute has been consistent. The Department has carefully investigated the matter on remand and has found no basis to support finding that workers of IBM Corporation, Global Services Division, Piscataway and Middletown, New Jersey are engaged in the production of an article or support for the production of an article. Consequently, they are not eligible for certification. Conclusion In the case of IBM Corporation, Global Services Division, Piscataway and Middletown, New Jersey, it has been clearly established that the workers of the subject facility did not produce an article or support the production of an article within the meaning of the Trade Act and that they are not eligible for certification. As the result of the findings of the investigation on remand, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of IBM Corporation, Global Services Division, Piscataway and Middletown, New Jersey. Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of December, 2005. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5-7600 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,043] Intermark Fabric Corp., Plainfield, CT; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration By application of November 29, 2005 a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance

(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The initial investigation resulted in a negative determination signed on November 2, 2005 was based on the finding that imports of imitation suede and velvets for upholstery, drapery and apparel did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the subject plant and no shift of production to a foreign source occurred. The denial notice was published in the **Federal Register** on November 23, 2005 (70 FR 70882). In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding subject firm's customers and requested to investigate a secondary impact on the subject firm as an upstream supplier in the textile industry. A review of the new facts determined that the workers of the subject firm may qualify eligible for TAA on the basis of a secondary upstream supplier impact. Having conducted an investigation of subject firm workers on the basis of secondary impact, it was revealed that Intermark Fabric Corp, Plainfield, Connecticut supplied imitation suede and velvets that were used in the production of upholstery fabrics, and a loss of business with domestic manufacturers (whose workers were certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance) contributed importantly to the workers separation or threat of separation. In accordance with section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance

(ATAA)for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I determine that workers of Intermark Fabric Corp, Plainfield, Connecticut engaged in production of imitation suede and velvets qualify as adversely affected secondary workers under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Intermark Fabric Corp, Plainfield, Connecticut, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 28, 2004, through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of December, 2005. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5-7606 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,241] Maitlen and Benson, Inc. Long Beach, CA; Notice of Termination of Investigation Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on November 1, 2005 in response to a petition filed by a State agency representative on behalf of workers at Maitlen and Benson, Inc., Long Beach, California (TA-W-58,241). The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. Signed in Washington, DC this 6th day of December, 2005. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5-7607 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance

(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the periods of November and December 2005. In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for directly-impacted (primary) worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign county of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance as an adversely affected secondary group to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(b) of the Act must be met.

(1)Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2)The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and

(3)Either:

(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph

(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

(B)A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph

(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of section 222 have been met. *TA-W-58,002; Mid Continent Nail, Keystone Fasteners, Springdale, AR, September 21, 2004.* *TA-W-58,073; Motion Control Engineering, Inc., Schindler Elevator Corp., DBA O'Thompson Co., Glendale, NY, October 5, 2004.* *TA-W-58,143; Gunderson LLC, Portland, OR, October 14, 2004.* *TA-W-58,152; Native Textiles, Inc., Glens Falls, NY, October 17, 2004.* *TA-W-58,163; V.C. Originals, Ridgeland, MS, September 20, 2004.* *TA-W-58,165; Crane Plumbing, L.L.C., Ferguson, KY, October 6, 2004.* *TA-W-58,167; Galgon Industries, Inc., Building 5, Fremont, CA, October 6, 2004.* *TA-W-58,178; Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., Workforce Carolina and Ablest Staffing, Mt. Airy, NC, October 20, 2004.* *TA-W-58,179; Oakwood Furniture Mfg., Inc., New Tazewell, TN, October 20, 2004.* *TA-W-58,182; Meridian Beartrack Company, Div. of Meridan Gold Company, Salmon, ID, August 25, 2005.* *TA-W-58,192; Kim Bo Sewing Co., San Francisco, CA, October 7, 2004.* *TA-W-58,194; Springs Industries, Inc., Customer Service Center, Lancaster, SC, October 20, 2004.* *TA-W-58,198; Carpostan Yarn, Inc., Lake View, SC, October 18, 2004.* *TA-W-58,199; Carpostan Industries, Inc., Lake View, SC, October 18, 2004.* *TA-W-58,200; Lake View Finishing, Inc., Lake View, SC, October 18, 2004.* *TA-W-58,206; B and J Knits, Inc., Statesville, NC, October 20, 2004.* *TA-W-58,212; Wright Products Co., Truth Hardware Division, A Subsidiary of FKI Industries, Rice Lake, WI, February 27, 2005.* *TA-W-58,215; Bespak, Inc., Apex, NC, October 25, 2004.* *TA-W-58,234; Hearthstone Enterprises, Charleston Forge Main Plant (Plant 1), Boone, NC, October 28, 2004.* *TA-W-58,234A; Hearthstone Enterprises, Charleston Forge (Plant 2), Boone, NC, October 28, 2004.* *TA-W-58,234B; Hearthstone Enterprises, Charleston Forge (Plant 5), Boone, NC, October 28, 2004.* *TA-W-58,246; Fibrex, LLC, Formerly Wellington Cordage, LLC, Madison, GA, November 27, 2005.* *TA-W-58,312; Gilbert Hose, Hickory, NC, November 9, 2004.* *TA-W-58,387; Koret of California, Inc., A Subsidiary of Kellwood Co., Sample Production Workers, Oakland, CA, November 4, 2004.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of (a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of section 222 have been met. *TA-W-58,068; Photocircuits Corporation, Peachtree City, GA, August 8, 2005.* *TA-W-58,191; Brown Jordan Co., Buff and Grind Dept. & Painting Line Dept, El Monte, CA, October 11, 2004.* *TA-W-58,214; Quincrafts Corporation, A Subsidiary of Colorbook, Including On-Site Leased Workers of QRI, Pawtucket, RI, October 20, 2004.* *TA-W-58,303; Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp., Textile Effects, Including On-Site Leased Workers of Aerotek and WSI, Charlotte, NC, November 8, 2004.* *TA-W-58,350; Raytheon Aircraft Company, Wire Harness Assembly Operations, Wichita, KS, December 23, 2005.* *TA-W-58,350A; Raytheon Aircraft Company, Wire Harness Assembly Operations, Salina, KS, December 23, 2005.* The following certification has been issued. The requirement of supplier to a trade certified firm has been met. *TA-W-58,278; Bangor Electronics Co., Bangor, MI, November 1, 2004.* The following certification has been issued. The requirement of downstream producer to a trade certified firm has been met. *None.* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified. The investigation revealed that criterion (a)(2)(A)(I.A) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A) (no employment decline) has not been met. *TA-W-58,320; Johnson Hosiery Mills, Inc., Fort Payne, AL.* *TA-W-58,322; Pioneer Knitting Mills, Fort Payne, AL.* *TA-W-58,325; Capstone Hosiery, LLC, Fort Payne, AL.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B) (No shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-58,065; Keebler Company, Kellogg's Snacks, Macon, GA.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B) (No shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-58,058; Wizard Textiles, Inc., Newark, NJ.* *TA-W-58,172; Pioneer Americas LLC, Tacoma Plant, Tacoma, WA.* *TA-W-58,173; Cargill, Inc., Jefferson, WI.* *TA-W-58,242; Visteon Systems LLC, North Penn Electronics Facility, Lansdale, PA.* *TA-W-58,279; Jones Apparel Group, AM-1 Room, Bristol, PA.* *TA-W-58,279A; Jones Apparel Group, Bristol Distribution Center, Bristol, PA.* *TA-W-58,161; Maxi Seal Harness Systems, Inc., Garland, TX.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (Increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.C) (has shifted production to a foreign country) have not been met. *None.* The workers firm does not produce an article as required for certification under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-58,114; Alcatel USA, Plano, TX.* *TA-W-58,243; SavaJe Technologies, Chelmsford, MA.* *TA-W-58,261; Alliance Consulting Group Associates, Corporate Office and Operations Group, Philadelphia, PA.* The investigation revealed that criteria

(2)has not been met. The workers firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier or downstream producer to trade-affected companies. *None.* Affirmative Determinations for Alternative Trade Ajdustment Assistance In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determinations. In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of section 246(a)(3)(ii) have been met. I. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. II. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. III. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse). *TA-W-58,178; Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc., Workforce Carolina and Ablest Staffing, Mt. Airy, NC, October 20, 2004.* *TA-W-58,194; Springs Industries, Inc., Customer Service Center, Lancaster, SC, October 20, 2004.* *TA-W-58,215; Bespak, Inc., Apex, NC, October 25, 2004.* *TA-W-58,246; Fibrex, LLC, Formerly Wellington Cordage, LLC, Madison, GA, November 27, 2005.* *TA-W-58,387; Koret of California, Inc., A Subsidiary of Kellwood Co., Sample Production Workers, Oakland, CA, November 4, 2004.* *TA-W-58,002; Mid Continent Nail, Keystone Fasteners, Springdale, AR, September 21, 2004.* *TA-W-58,073; Motion Control Engineering, Inc., Schindler Elevator Corp., DBA O'Thompson Co., Glendale, NY, October 5, 2004.* *TA-W-58,152; Native Textiles, Inc., Glens Falls, NY, October 17, 2004.* *TA-W-58,165; Crane Plumbing, L.L.C., Ferguson, KY, October 6, 2004.* *TA-W-58,179; Oakwood Furniture Mfg., Inc., New Tazewell, TN, October 20, 2004.* *TA-W-58,198; Carpostan Yarn, Inc., Lake View, SC, October 18, 2004.* *TA-W-58,199; Carpostan Industries, Inc., Lake View, SC, October 18, 2004.* *TA-W-58,200; Lake View Finishing, Inc., Lake View, SC, October 18, 2004.* *TA-W-58,234; Hearthstone Enterprises, Charleston Forge Main Plant (Plant 1), Boone, NC, October 28, 2004.* *TA-W-58,234A; Hearthstone Enterprises, Charleston Forge (Plant 2), Boone, NC, October 28, 2004.* *TA-W-58,234B; Hearthstone Enterprises, Charleston Forge (Plant 5), Boone, NC, October 28, 2004.* *TA-W-58,312; Gilbert Hose, Hickory, NC, November 9, 2004.* *TA-W-58,192; Kim Bo Sewing Co., San Francisco, CA, October 7, 2004.* *TA-W-58,191; Brown Jordan Co., Buff and Grind Dept. & Painting Line Dept, El Monte, CA, October 11, 2004.* *TA-W-58,303; Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corp., Textile Effects, Including On-Site Leased Workers of Aerotek and WSI, Charlotte, NC, November 8, 2004.* *TA-W-58,350; Raytheon Aircraft Company, Wire Harness Assembly Operations, Wichita, KS, December 23, 2005.* *TA-W-58,350A; Raytheon Aircraft Company, Wire Harness Assembly Operations, Salina, KS, December 23, 2005.* *TA-W-58,068; Photocircuits Corporation, Peachtree City, GA, August 8, 2005.* *TA-W-58,278; Bangor Electronics Co., Bangor, MI, November 1, 2004.* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issued a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of section 246(a)(3)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. *TA-W-58,320; Johnson Hosiery Mills, Inc., Fort Payne, AL.* *TA-W-58,322; Pioneer Knitting Mills, Fort Payne, AL.* *TA-W-58,325; Capstone Hosiery, LLC, Fort Payne, AL.* *TA-W-58,065; Keebler Company, Kellogg's Snacks, Macon, GA.* *TA-W-58,058; Wizard Textiles, Inc., Newark, NJ.* *TA-W-58,172; Pioneer Americas LLC, Tacoma Plant, Tacoma, WA.* *TA-W-58,173; Cargill, Inc., Jefferson, WI.* *TA-W-58,242; Visteon Systems LLC, North Penn Electronics Facility, Lansdale, PA.* *TA-W-58,279; Jones Apparel Group, AM-1 Room, Bristol, PA.* *TA-W-58,279A; Jones Apparel Group, Bristol Distribution Center, Bristol, PA.* *TA-W-58,161; Maxi Seal Harness Systems, Inc., Garland, TX.* The Department has determined that criterion

(1)of section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of age or older. *TA-W-58,214; Quincrafts Corporation, A Subsidiary of Colorbook, Including On-Site Leased Workers of QRI, Pawtucket, RI.* *TA-W-58,163; V.C. Originals, Ridgeland, MS.* *TA-W-58,206; B and J Knits, Inc., Statesville, NC.* The Department has determined that criterion

(2)of section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *TA-W-58,143; Gunderson LLC, Portland, OR.* *TA-W-58,212; Wright Products Co., Truth Hardware Division, A Subsidiary of FKI Industries, Rice Lake, WI.* The Department has determined that criterion

(3)of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of November and December 2005. Copies of These determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: December 14, 2005. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5-7604 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Investigations Regarding Certifications of Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act. The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved. The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than January 3, 2006. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than January 3, 2006. The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of December 2005. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA petitions instituted between 11/28/05 and 12/2/05] TA-W Subject firm (petitioners) Location Date of institution Date of petition 58411 Phibro-Tech, Inc.

(Comp)Sumter, SC 11/28/05 11/22/05 58412 F. Schumacher and Company (State) Newark, DE 11/28/05 11/28/05 58413 Badger Paper Flexible Package

(Wkrs)Oconton Falls, WI 11/28/05 11/18/05 58414 Quantum Corporation

(Comp)Colorado Springs, CO 11/29/05 11/22/05 58415 El Paso Garment Contractors, Inc.

(Comp)El Paso, TX 11/29/05 11/28/05 58416 Gold Toe Brands, Inc.

(Comp)Burlington, NC 11/29/05 11/23/05 58417 MacLean-ESNA (State) Pocahontas, AR 11/29/05 11/22/05 58418 Nichols Stone Company

(Comp)Rural Hall, NC 11/30/05 11/23/05 58419 Dean Company

(Comp)Princeton, WV 11/30/05 11/29/05 58420 Stoneridge Alphabet Division

(Comp)Orwell, OH 11/30/05 11/29/05 58421 Sony Electronics

(Wkrs)Mt. Pleasant, PA 11/30/05 11/29/05 58422 Western Forge

(Comp)Murphy, NC 11/30/05 11/29/05 58423 Unifi, Inc.

(Comp)Mayodan, NC 11/30/05 11/29/05 58424 Quality Manufacturing, Inc.

(Comp)Winchester, KY 11/30/05 11/22/05 58425 Carolina Mills, Inc.

(Comp)Maiden, NC 11/30/05 11/30/05 58426 Laird Technologies (State) Schaumburg, IL 11/30/05 11/17/05 58427 Pure-Flo Precision

(IBT)Springfield, MO 11/30/05 11/21/05 58428 Apple Computer, Inc.

(Wkrs)Cupertine, CA 11/30/05 11/22/05 58429 Agilent Technologies, Inc.

(Wkrs)Colorado Springs, CO 11/30/05 11/09/05 58430 Ford Motor Company

(Wkrs)Mt. Laurel, NJ 11/30/05 11/21/05 58431 Clarion Sintered Metals

(Comp)Ridgway, PA 11/30/05 11/30/05 58432 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

(Comp)Macon, GA 11/30/05 11/30/05 58433 Consolidated Metco, Inc. (State) Portland, OR 11/30/05 11/22/05 58434 Burlen Corporation (State) Tifton, GA 11/30/05 11/23/05 58435 Paxar Americas (IAMAW) Sayre, PA 12/01/05 11/22/05 58436 Occidental Chemical Corp. (State) LaPorte, TX 12/01/05 11/28/05 58437 Pall Medical (MEDSEP) (State) Covina, CA 12/01/05 11/30/05 58438 Palliser Furniture Corp.

(Comp)Troutman, NC 12/01/05 11/30/05 58439 Hart and Cooley—Milcor (IBSORI) Lima, OH 12/01/05 11/20/05 58440 American Apparel Corporation (State) Knoxville, TN 12/01/05 11/30/05 58441 Caldwell Manufacturing Company

(Comp)Jackson, MS 12/01/05 11/22/05 58442 Weyerhaeuser

(IAM)Aberdeen, WA 12/01/05 11/21/05 58443 Amorim Industrial Solutions, Inc.

(Comp)Trevor, WI 12/01/05 11/23/05 58444 Johnson Controls, Inc.

(UAW)Earth City, MO 12/01/05 11/21/05 58445 Christiana Floral, Inc.

(Comp)Christiana, PA 12/02/05 12/01/05 58446 Boise, LLC

(Wkrs)Cascade, ID 12/02/05 11/18/05 58447 May and Scofield, LLC

(Comp)Madison, SD 12/02/05 12/01/05 58448 Exopack, LLC (State) Monticello, AR 12/02/05 12/01/05 58449 Mississippi Polymers, Inc.

(Wkrs)Corinth, MS 12/02/05 11/30/05 58450 Bay Engineered Castings

(Wkrs)DePere, WI 12/02/05 11/30/05 58451 Textron Fastening Systems

(Comp)Greenville, MS 12/02/05 11/10/05 58452 Ishikawa Gasket America, Inc.

(Wkrs)Bowling Green, OH 12/02/05 12/02/05 [FR Doc. E5-7609 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-56,417] Pride Manufacturing Company LLC Currently Known as American Pride Including Leased Workers of BDL/Allies Guilford, ME; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on March 3, 2005, applicable to workers of Pride Manufacturing Company LLC, including leased workers of BDL/Allies, Guilford, Maine. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16848). At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of wood products, including shapes, knobs, and gallery rail spindles; workers are not separately identifiable by specific products. New information provided by the state shows that in October, 2005, American Pride purchased the Guilford, Maine facility of Pride Manufacturing Company LLC and is currently known as American Pride. The State agency also reports that workers wages at the subject firm are being reported under the Unemployment Insurance

(UI)tax account for American Pride, Guilford, Maine. Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Pride Manufacturing Company LLC who were adversely affected by increased company imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-56,417 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Pride Manufacturing Company LLC, currently known as American Pride, including leased workers of BDL/Allies, Guilford, Maine, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 19, 2004, through March 3, 2007, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of December 2005. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5-7601 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration Notice of Determinations Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance

(ATAA)by (TA-W) number issued during the periods of December 2005. In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for directly-impacted (primary) worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(a) of the Act must be met. I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied: A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated; B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign county of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and C. One of the following must be satisfied: 1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States; 2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or 3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision. Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance as an adversely affected secondary group to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(b) of the Act must be met.

(3)Either:

(A)The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph

(2)accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

(B)A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph

(2)contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation. Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination. The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of section 222 have been met. *TA-W-57,929; Sappi Fine Paper, N.A., S.D. Warren Company, Muskegon, MI: September 14, 2004.* *TA-W-58,045; Lexel Company, A Division of Mamco Corporation, Including Leased Workers of Westaff, Inc., Hutsonville, IL: August 8, 2005.* *TA-W-58,111; Fashion Dye Works, Inc., Ridgewood, NY:* September 28, 2004. *TA-W-58,126; GDX Automotive, Adecco and Ablest, Salisbury, NC: October 12, 2004.* *TA-W-58,169; Motorola, Inc., Schaumburg, IL:* September 21, 2004. *TA-W-58,193; Goodman Veneer and Lumber, A Subsidiary of Besse Forest Products, Goodman, WI: October 21, 2004.* *TA-W-58,197; Flynn Enterprises, LLC, Elkton Div., Elkton, KY: October 20, 2004.* *TA-W-58,210; Tooling Science, Maple Grove, MN:* October 25, 2004. *TA-W-58,218; Encad, Inc., A Kodak Company, San Diego, CA:* October 26, 2004. *TA-W-58,219; Woodline Productions, Medford, OR:* October 25, 2004. *TA-W-58,222; Ansonia Copper and Brass, Inc., Ansonia, CT:* October 26, 2004. *TA-W-58,222A; Ansonia Copper and Brass, Inc., Waterbury, CT:* October 26, 2004. *TA-W-58,231; Peak Oilfield Services, Workers at Agrium U.S., Kenai, AK: October 27, 2004.* *TA-W-58,232; Farris Fashions, Inc., Brinkley, AR: October 28, 2004.* *TA-W-58,254; WestPoint Home (formerly Westpoint Stevens, Inc.), Basic Bedding Div., Biddeford, ME: October 26, 2004.* *TA-W-58,259; U.S. Union Tool, Inc., Buena Park, CA:November 2, 2004.* *TA-W-58,262; Shuford Mills, LLC., Shurspun, Hudson, NC: November 2, 2004.* The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of (a)(2)(B) (shift in production) of section 222 have been met. *TA-W-57,889; Telex Communications, Inc., Blue Earth Manufacturing Facility, Blue Earth, MN: September 6, 2004.* *TA-W-58,209; Carolina Steele Products, Inc., Gastonia, NC: October 22, 2004.* *TA-W-58,239; Savcor Coatings, Ltd., Fort Worth Div., Westaff, Prostaff, Verion & V & S, Ft. Worth, TX: October 27, 2004.* *TA-W-58,240; GST AutoLeather, Hagerstown, MD: October 31, 2004.* *TA-W-58,271; Cargill Sweeteners North America, Div. of Cargill, Inc., Decatur, AL: November 2, 2004.* *TA-W-58,297; Revcor Molded Products, Revcor Companies, Haltom City, TX: November 3, 2004.* *TA-W-58,365; Phoenix Mecano, Inc., Romney, WV: November 15, 2004.* *TA-W-58,410; SKF Sealing Solutions, SKF Automotive Div., Springfield, SD: November 23, 2004.* The following certification has been issued. The requirement of supplier to a trade certified firm has been met. *TA-W-58,204; Bethel Furniture Stock, Inc., Bethel, ME: September 26, 2004.* *TA-W-58,290; Collins and Aikman, Lowell, MA: November 7, 2004.* *TA-W-58,337; Cone Denim, LLC, Cone Rutherford County Div., Cliffside, NC: December 4, 2005.* The following certification has been issued. The requirement of downstream producer to a trade certified firm has been met. *None.* Negative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified. The investigation revealed that criterion (a)(2)(A)(I.A) and (a)(2)(B)(II.A) (no employment decline) has not been met. *TA-W-58,267; G and G Hosiery, Fort Payne, AL.* *TA-W-58,323; Lala Ellen Knitting, Fort Payne, AL.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.B.) (Sales or production, or both, did not decline) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B) (No shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-58,224; Eaton Hydraulics, Inc., Fluid Power-Hydraulics Div., Jackson, MI.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (increased imports) and (a)(2)(B)(II.B) (No shift in production to a foreign country) have not been met. *TA-W-58,217; Carolina Mills, Inc., Plant No. 9, Valdese, NC.* *TA-W-58,238; Eaton Corporation, Automotive-Engine Air Management Operations Division, Saginaw, MI.* *TA-W-58,255; DRS Signal Solutions West, DRS Technologies, Inc., Morgan Hill, CA.* *TA-W-58,269; Easthampton Dye Works, Inc., Easthampton, MA.* *TA-W-58,132; Tibbetts Industries, Inc., Camden, ME.* *TA-W-58230; IBM—Integrated Supply Chain, 3605 Highway 52 North, Rochester, MN.* The investigation revealed that criteria (a)(2)(A)(I.C.) (Increased imports and (a)(2)(B)(II.C) (has shifted production to a foreign country) have not been met. The workers firm does not produce an article as required for certification under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974. *TA-W-58,316; Prewett Mills Distribution Center, Fort Payne, AL.* *TA-W-58,317; Prewett Hosiery Sales Corporation, Fort Payne, AL.* The investigation revealed that criteria

(2)has not been met. The workers firm (or subdivision) is not a supplier or downstream producer to trade-affected companies. *TA-W-58,223; Alsco American Industrial Service, Portland, OR.* Affirmative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issued a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determinations. In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of section 246(a)(3)(ii) have been met. I. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older. II. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable. III. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse). *TA-W-57,929; Sappi Fine Paper, N.A., S.D. Warren Company, Muskegon, MI: September 14, 2004.* *TA-W-58,231; Peak Oilfield Services, Workers at Agrium U.S., Kenai, AK: October 27, 2004.* *TA-W-58,259; U.S. Union Tool, Inc., Buena Park, CA: November 2, 2004.* *TA-W-58,045; Lexel Company, A Division of Mamco Corporation, Including Leased Workers of Westaff, Inc., Hutsonville, IL: August 8, 2005.* *TA-W-58,126; GDX Automotive, Adecco and Ablest, Salisbury, NC: October 12, 2004.* *TA-W-58,197; Flynn Enterprises, LLC, Elkton Div., Elkton, KY: October 20, 2004.* *TA-W-58,210; Tooling Science, Maple Grove, MN: October 25, 2004.* *TA-W-58,218; Encad, Inc., A Kodak Company, San Diego, CA: October 26, 2004.* *TA-W-58,222; Ansonia Copper and Brass, Inc., Ansonia, CT: October 26, 2004.* *TA-W-58,222A; Ansonia Copper and Brass, Inc., Waterbury, CT: October 26, 2004.* *TA-W-58,232; Farris Fashions, Inc., Brinkley, AR: October 28, 2004.* *TA-W-58,254; WestPoint Home (formerly Westpoint Stevens, Inc.), Basic Bedding Div., Biddeford, ME: October 26, 2004.* *TA-W-58,262; Shuford Mills, LLC., Shurspun, Hudson, NC: November 2, 2004.* *TA-W-58,111; Fashion Dye Works, Inc., Ridgewood, NY: September 28, 2004.* *TA-W-58,219; Woodline Productions, Medford, OR: October 25, 2004.* *TA-W-58,239; Savcor Coatings, Ltd., Fort Worth Div., Westaff, Prostaff, Verion & V & S, Ft. Worth, TX: October 27, 2004.* *TA-W-58,240; GST AutoLeather, Hagerstown, MD: October 31, 2004.* *TA-W-58,271; Cargill Sweeteners North America, Div. of Cargill, Inc., Decatur, AL: November 2, 2004.* *TA-W-58,410; SKF Sealing Solutions, SKF Automotive Div., Springfield, SD: November 23, 2004.* *TA-W-57,889; Telex Communications, Inc., Blue Earth Manufacturing Facility, Blue Earth, MN: September 6, 2004.* *TA-W-58,365; Phoenix Mecano, Inc., Romney, WV: November 15, 2004.* *TA-W-58,209; Carolina Steele Products, Inc., Gastonia, NC: October 22, 2004.* *TA-W-58,204; Bethel Furniture Stock, Inc., Bethel, ME: September 26, 2004.* *TA-W-58,290; Collins and Aikman, Lowell, MA: November 7, 2004.* *TA-W-58,337; Cone Denim, LLC, Cone Rutherford County Div., Cliffside, NC: December 4, 2005.* Negative Determinations for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance

(ATAA)for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met. In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of section 246(a)(3)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified. Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA. *TA-W-58,253; G and H Custom Cabinets, Seagrove, NC.* *TA-W-58,267; G and G Hosiery, Fort Payne, AL.* *TA-W-58,224; Eaton Hydraulics, Inc., Fluid Power-Hydraulics Div., Jackson, MI.* *TA-W-58,217; Carolina Mills, Inc., Plant No. 9, Valdese, NC.* *TA-W-58,238; Eaton Corporation, Automotive-Engine Air Management Operations Division, Saginaw, MI.* *TA-W-58,255; DRS Signal Solutions West, DRS Technologies, Inc., Morgan Hill, CA.* *TA-W-58,269; Easthampton Dye Works, Inc., Easthampton, MA.* *TA-W-58,132; Tibbetts Industries, Inc., Camden, ME.* *TA-W-58,316; Prewett Mills Distribution Center, Fort Payne, AL.* *TA-W-58,317; Prewett Hosiery Sales Corporation, Fort Payne, AL.* *TA-W-58,223; Alsco American Industrial Service, Portland, OR.* *TA-W-58,193; Goodman Veneer and Lumber, A Subsidiary of Besse Forest Products, Goodman, WI:* *TA-W-58,361; Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 483, Morrison, TN.* The Department has determined that criterion

(1)of Section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm are 50 years of age or older. *None.* The Department as determined that criterion

(2)of section 246 has not been met. Workers at the firm possess skills that are easily transferable. *TA-W-58,297; Revcor Molded Products, Revcor Companies, Haltom City, TX.* The Department has determined that criterion

(3)of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse. *None.* I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of December 2005. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address. Dated: December 15, 2005. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5-7603 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,013] Spectrum Yarns, Inc., Kings Mountain, NC; Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration By application of November 8, 2005 a company official requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility for workers and former workers of the subject firm to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance

(TAA)and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA). The denial notice was signed on October 21, 2005 and published in the **Federal Register** on November 9, 2005 (70 FR 68099). The TAA petition, filed on behalf of workers at Spectrum Yarns, Inc., Kings Mountain, North Carolina, engaged in production of dyed yarns was denied because criteria 3(A) and 3(B) were not met. The negative determination was based on the findings that job losses at the subject firm were not attributed to the subject firm losing business as a supplier to a firm that shifted production abroad or was affected by increased imports. In the request for reconsideration, the petitioner provided additional information regarding the products manufactured at the subject facility. Upon further investigation on reconsideration, it was revealed that workers of the subject firm produce the spun polyester poly blend dyed yarn; they are separately identifiable from other workers of the subject firm. It was further revealed that employment and sales of the spun polyester poly blend dyed yarn decreased during the relevant time period. The company official provided a list of the subject firm's customers, and requested an investigation of a secondary impact on the subject firm as an upstream supplier in the textile industry. A review of the new facts has determined that the workers of the subject firm may qualify as eligible for TAA on the basis of a secondary upstream supplier impact. Having conducted an investigation of subject firm workers on the basis of secondary impact, it was revealed that Spectrum Yarns, Inc., Kings Mountain, North Carolina, supplied spun polyester poly blend dyed yarn that were used in the production of textile fabrics and other textile products, and a loss of business with domestic manufacturers (whose workers were certified eligible to apply for adjustment assistance) contributed importantly to the workers separation or threat of separation. In accordance with section 246 the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents the results of its investigation regarding certification of eligibility to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance

(ATAA)for older workers. In order for the Department to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for ATAA, the group eligibility requirements of section 246 of the Trade Act must be met. The Department has determined in this case that the requirements of section 246 have been met. A significant number of workers at the firm are age 50 or over and possess skills that are not easily transferable. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse. Conclusion After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I determine that workers of Spectrum Yarns, Inc., Kings Mountain, North Carolina, engaged in production of spun polyester poly blend dyed yarn qualify as adversely affected secondary workers under section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification: All workers of Spectrum Yarns, Inc., Kings Mountain, North Carolina, engaged in production of spun polyester poly blend dyed yarn, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 30, 2005, through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and All workers of Spectrum Yarns, Inc., Kings Mountain, North Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after September 19, 2004, through two years from the date of this certification, are eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of December, 2005. Linda G. Poole, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5-7605 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-57,729] Teleflex Medical Pilling Weck, Incorporated Including Leased Workers of Adecco Research Triangle Park, NC; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on August 30, 2005, applicable to workers of Teleflex Medical, including leased workers of Adecco, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The notice was published in the **Federal Register** on October 6, 2005 (70 FR 58478). At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of medical devices. New information shows that that all workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance

(UI)tax account for Pilling Weck, Incorporated. Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to properly reflect this matter. The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Teleflex Medical, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina who was adversely affected increased imports. The amended notice applicable to TA-W-57,729 is hereby issued as follows: All workers of Teleflex Medical, Pilling Weck, Incorporated, including leased workers of Adecco, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after August 12, 2004, through August 30, 2007, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of December 2005. Richard Church, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E5-7602 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [Notice (05-170)] Notice of Prospective Patent License AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ACTION: Notice of Prospective Patent License. SUMMARY: This notice is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant a partially exclusive license in the United States to practice the inventions described and claimed in Foreign Patent No. 0423277, JSC Docket No. MSC-21293-1-EP, “Bio-Reactor Cell Culture Process”, Foreign Patent No. 1987294, JSC Docket No. MSC-21293-1-JP, “Bio-Reactor Cell Culture Process”, International Application No. PCT/US98/06826, JSC Docket No. MSC-22859-1-EP, European Application No. 98915320.0 entitled “Production of Functional Proteins: Balance of Shear Stress and Gravity”, International Application No. PCT/US98/06826, JSC Docket No. MSC-22859-1-JP, Japanese Application No. 10-540983 entitled “Production of Functional Proteins: Balance of Shear Stress and Gravity”, International Application No. PCT/US98/06826, JSC Docket No. MSC-22859-1-CA, Canadian Application No. 2286349 entitled “Production of Functional Proteins: Balance of Shear Stress and Gravity”, International Application No. PCT/US98/06826, JSC Docket No. MSC-22859-1-IL, Israeli Application No. 132264 entitled “Production of Functional Proteins: Balance of Shear Stress and Gravity”, International Application No. PCT/US98/06826, JSC Docket No. MSC-22859-1-MX, Mexican Application No. 999265 entitled “Production of Functional Proteins: Balance of Shear Stress and Gravity”, and International Application No. PCT/US98/06826, JSC Docket No. MSC-22859-1-BR, Brazilian Application No. 98915320.0 entitled “Production of Functional Proteins: Balance of Shear Stress and Gravity” to Renautus Bio Therapeutics, LLC, having its principal place of business in Baton Rouge, LA. The patent rights in the inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective partially exclusive license will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. DATES: The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen

(15)days from the date of this published notice, NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. Competing applications completed and received by NASA within fifteen

(15)days of the date of this published notice will be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated partially exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. ADDRESSES: Objections relating to the prospective license may be submitted to Patent Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel, Johnson Space Center, Mail Code AL, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, Texas 77058. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt G. Hammerle, Patent Attorney, NASA Johnson Space Center, Mail Stop AL, Houston, TX 77058-8452, Telephone:

(281)483-1001, Facsimile:

(281)483-6936. Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at *http://technology.nasa.gov/.* Dated: December 15, 2005. Keith T. Sefton, Deputy General Counsel, Administration and Management. [FR Doc. E5-7635 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7510-13-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Proposed Collections; Comment Request *Upon Written Request, Copies Available From:* Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549. *Extensions:* Form SE; OMB Control No. 3235-0327; SEC File No. 270-289. Form ID; OMB Control No. 3235-0328; SEC File No. 270-291. Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval. Form SE is used by registrants to file paper copies of exhibits that would be difficult or impossible to submit electronically. The information contained in Form SE is used by the Commission to identify paper copies of exhibits. Form SE is filed by individuals, companies or other for-profit organizations that are required to file electronically. Approximately 782 registrants file Form SE and it takes an estimated .10 hours per response for a total annual burden of 78 hours. Form ID (OMB Control No. 3235-0328; SEC File No. 270-291) is used by companies to apply for identification numbers and passwords used in conjunction with the EDGAR electronic filing system. The information provided on Form ID is essential to the security of the EDGAR system. Form ID must be filed every time a registrant or other person obtains or changes an identification number. Form ID is filed by individuals, companies or other for-profit organizations that are required to file electronically. Approximately 196,800 registrants file Form ID and it takes an estimated .15 hours per response for a total annual burden of 29,520 hours. Written comments are invited on:

(a)Whether these proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

(1)When an issuer intentionally discloses material information, it do so through public disclosure, not selective disclosure; and

(2)whenever an issuer learns that it has made a non-intentional material selective disclosure, the issuer make prompt public disclosure of that information. Regulation FD was adopted due to a concern that the practice of selective disclosure leads to a loss of investor confidence in the integrity of our capital markets. We estimate that approximately 13,000 issuers make Regulation FD disclosures approximately five times a year for a total of 58,000 submissions annually, not including an estimated 7,000 issuers who file Form 8-K to comply with under Regulation FD. We estimate that it takes approximately 5 hours per response (58,000 × 5 hours) for a total burden of 290,000 hours annually. The filer prepares 25% of the 290,000 annual burden hours for a total of 72,500 burden hours. Written comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and

(d)of Rule 12a-5, after an exchange has taken action to admit any security to trading pursuant to the provisions of the Rule, the exchange is required to file with the Commission a notification on Form 26. Form 26 provides the Commission with certain information regarding a security admitted to trading on an exchange pursuant to Rule 12a-5, including:

(1)The name of the exchange,

(2)the name of the issuer,

(3)a description of the security,

(4)the date(s) on which the security was or will be admitted to when-issued and/or regular trading, and

(5)a brief description of the transaction pursuant to which the security was or will be issued. The Commission generally oversees the national securities exchanges. This mission requires that, under Section 12(a) of the Act specifically, the Commission receive notification of any securities that are permitted to trade on an exchange pursuant to the temporary exemption under Rule 12a-5. Without the Rule and the Form, the Commission would be unable fully to implement these statutory responsibilities. There are currently eight national securities exchanges subject to Rule 12a-5. While the Commission staff estimates that there could be as many as 40 Forms 26 filed annually, the reporting burdens are not typically spread evenly among the exchanges. 1 For purposes of this analysis of burden, however, the staff has assumed that each exchange files an equal number

(five)of Form 26 notifications. Each notification requires approximately 20 minutes to complete. Each respondent's compliance burden, then, in a given year would be approximately 100 minutes (20 minutes/report × 5 reports = 100 minutes), which translates to just over 13 hours in the aggregate for all respondents (8 respondents × 100 minutes/respondent = 800 minutes, or 13 1/3 hours). 1 In fact, some exchanges do not file any notifications on Form 26 with the Commission in a given year. Based on the most recent available information, the Commission staff estimates that the cost to respondents of completing a notification on Form 26 is, on average, $14.35 per response. The staff estimates that the total annual related reporting cost per respondent is $71.75 (5 responses/respondent × $14.35 cost/response), for a total annual related cost to all respondents of $574 ($71.75 cost/respondent × 8 respondents). Written comments are invited on:

(a)Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility;

(b)the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

(c)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(d)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication. Direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Dated: December 14, 2005. Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. E5-7591 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [Release No. 34-52955; File No. SR-PCX-2005-102] Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Elimination of Obsolete Rules Related to the Pacific Options Exchange Trading System December 14, 2005. Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”), 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder, 2 notice is hereby given that on November 10, 2005, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by PCX. PCX filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on November 22, 2005. 3 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons. 1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1). 2 17 CFR 240.19b-4. 3 *See* Partial Amendment, submitted by Glenn H. Gsell, Director of Regulation, PCX (“Amendment No. 1”). In Amendment No. 1, PCX corrected a typographical error in the rule text. Because Amendment No. 1 is a technical amendment, it is not subject to notice and comment. I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change The Exchange is proposing to amend various PCX Rules to eliminate obsolete rules related to the Pacific Options Exchange Trading System (“POETS”) and Order Book Officials (“OBOs”). The Exchange has also proposed to make a number of corresponding changes to rules related thereto. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the PCX's Web site ( *http://www.pacificex.com* ), at the PCX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room. II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change 1. Purpose The Exchange proposes to modify the PCX Rules to eliminate obsolete rules with respect to POETS and OBOs and make corresponding changes to related rules. As of March 2005, the Exchange completed its rollout of the PCX Plus System. 4 As such, options issues no longer trade on the POETS platform at the Exchange. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to eliminate rules related to POETS, including rules regarding OBOs, and to generally modify the rules as applicable in the current PCX Plus market structure. 4 *See* Securities Exchange Act Release No. 47838 (May 13, 2003), 68 FR 27129 (May 19, 2003) (Order Approving Proposal for PCX Plus). a. Order Book Officials/Trading Officials The Exchange proposes to modify or delete PCX Rules 6.51 through 6.59 to eliminate the term and general functionality of OBOs. Currently, PCX Rule 6.51 defines OBOs as Exchange employees who are responsible for maintaining the book with respect to the classes of options assigned to him, effecting proper executions of orders placed in the book, displaying bids and offers pursuant to PCX Rule 6.55, and monitoring the market for the classes of options assigned to him. Due to the elimination of the Order Book and full implementation of PCX Plus (and the fully electronic Consolidated Book), the order handling functionality of OBOs is no longer applicable. Also, many of the administrative duties of the OBO, such as tracking market maker appointments (as set forth in PCX Rule 6.51(b)) are now performed within the PCX Plus system. Certain PCX personnel, however, will continue to oversee trading crowds and otherwise assist in maintaining a fair and orderly market, similar to the current Trading Official and Exchange Official. 5 Therefore, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the definitions of OBO (as set forth in PCX Rule 6.51(a)) and Exchange Official (as set forth in PCX Rule 6.1(b)(41)) and combine their remaining functionality of maintaining a fair and orderly market with the functionality of the Trading Official. The Exchange proposes to modify the definition of Trading Official in PCX Rule 6.1(b)(34) to provide that a Trading Official will be an Exchange employee or officer who is appointed by the Chief Executive Officer or its designee or by the Chief Regulatory Officer or its designee. OTP Holders will no longer be designated as Trading Officials or involved in making decisions on regulatory matters. The Exchange believes that by restricting these decisions to qualified Exchange employees, the potential for partiality or conflicts of interest is removed from the process. An Exchange employee or officer designated as a Trading Official will from time to time as provided in the rules have the ability to recommend and enforce rules and regulations relating to trading access, order, decorum, health, safety and welfare on the Options Trading Floor. 5 *See* PCX Rule 6.1(b)(34) and (41). In addition, the Exchange proposes to delete PCX Rule 6.52 in its entirety. PCX Rule 6.52 sets forth the procedures for OBOs to accept and execute orders. This provision is obsolete as the OBOs no longer accept and execute orders on behalf of OTP Holders and OTP Firms on PCX Plus. PCX Rule 10.13(c)(2), which deals with the issuance of a summary sanction related to PCX Rule 6.52(a), will also be eliminated. The Exchange proposes to reserve PCX Rule number 6.52 for future use. Current PCX Rule 6.53 provides for the OBO's obligation to maintain a fair, orderly and competitive market. Specifically, the provision allows an OBO to call upon Market Makers appointed to act as such in a class of option contracts to make bids and/or offers if, in the OBO's opinion, the interests of a fair and orderly market would be best served by such action. The Exchange proposes to modify this provision to provide that a Trading Official could call upon Market Makers for bids and/or offers in such circumstances, as Trading Officials would retain the responsibility to maintain a fair and orderly market. The Exchange proposes to delete PCX Rules 6.54 through 6.59. These rules are related to an OBO's duty to report unusual conditions, an OBO's duty to display bids and offers in the book, transactions outside the OBO's last quoted range, the OBO's duty not to disclose orders, designation of OBOs by the Exchange, and the liability of the Exchange for actions of OBOs. The Exchange proposes to delete these rules because they are directly related to an OBO's order handling responsibilities (and implications of order handling responsibilities) and therefore they are obsolete in the current PCX Plus market structure. b. Elimination of POETS and Auto-Ex Functions Current PCX Rule 6.87 sets forth the rules with respect to the Automated Execution System (“Auto-Ex”) feature of POETS. The Exchange proposes to delete PCX Rules 6.87(a)-(f) and (h)-(p) in order to delete the Auto-Ex provisions due to the elimination of POETS. All options issues are currently trading on the PCX Plus platform, therefore the POETS and Auto-Ex rules are obsolete. In addition, the Exchange proposes to retain PCX Rule 6.87(g), which relates to trade nullification and price adjustment procedures (“Obvious Error Rule”), and renumber the rule as PCX Rule 6.87(a). The Obvious Error Rule is an options industry-wide set of procedures that was put into place to handle trade nullifications and price adjustments in a fair and consistent manner. These procedures are applicable to all trades executed on PCX Plus. The Exchange also proposes to rename PCX Rule 6.87 “Obvious Errors,” as appropriate for the modified rule. c. Modification of Fast Markets and Unusual Market Conditions The Exchange proposes to modify PCX Rule 6.28, Fast Markets and Unusual Market Conditions, as the procedures set forth therein with respect to “fast markets” are inapplicable in the PCX Plus market structure. The current rule sets forth specific procedures that are obsolete in the current trading structure. Prior to the introduction of the all-electronic PCX Plus trading system, when a market was declared “fast” due to unusual market conditions certain modifications to standard trading practices were often needed in order to maintain a fair and orderly market. Both systemic and physical limitations that were commonplace in a non-automated trading environment are no longer applicable. Therefore the procedures presently in place to deal with these circumstances are no longer applicable ( *e.g.* , moving certain issues or series of options to other posts, or modifying the parameters of Auto-Ex). Market Makers will still be required to trade a minimum of one contract based on their quoted markets pursuant to PCX Rule 6.37, Commentary .05. With regard to the aforementioned changes, however, the Exchange believes it would be prudent to retain a level of basic and flexible procedures to be followed during unusual market conditions. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to modify the provision to enable the Exchange to respond to unusual market conditions. The proposed unusual market condition provisions are based on the rules of the International Securities Exchange (“ISE”), 6 and provide for the Exchange to determine the existence of unusual market conditions. The proposed rule will also allow for the Exchange to employ trading rotations or take such other actions as are deemed in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market. 6 *See* ISE Rule 703(c). d. Modification of Trading Rotations The Exchange proposes to amend PCX Rule 6.64(a) and delete subsections (b)-(c) and Commentary .01 in order to delete references to opening rotations and automated opening rotations on POETS as these provisions are no longer applicable. Prior to the PCX Plus market structure a trading rotation was a time-consuming procedure, requiring manual processing by OBOs, Floor Brokers and LMMs. Trading rotations are now a fully automated process, overseen by a Trading Official. The PCX Plus Automated Opening Rotation provision set forth in PCX Rule 6.64(d) will remain unchanged. The Exchange also proposes to modify the closing rotations rule as provided in PCX Rule 6.64(e)-(f). Currently, PCX Rule 6.64(e)-(f) sets forth time frames and parameters for conducting closing rotations. These procedures are antiquated and inapplicable in the current PCX Plus market structure. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to modify the closing rotations provisions to provide that closing rotations may be utilized when the Exchange concludes that such action is appropriate in the interest of a fair and orderly market. The factors that may be considered include, but are not limited to, whether there has been a recent opening or reopening of trading in the underlying security, a declaration of an unusual market condition pursuant to PCX Rule 6.28, or a need for a rotation in connection with expiring individual stock options or index options, an end of the year rotation, or the restart of a rotation which is already in progress. Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify PCX Rule 6.64(h) in order to eliminate the provision related to OBOs representing orders during rotations. Such procedures are no longer applicable in the current PCX Plus market structure. e. Modification of Priority and Allocation Currently, PCX Rule 6.75 sets forth priority and order allocation procedures with respect to options issues designated for trading on POETS (including those that result in execution via open outcry). PCX Rule 6.76 sets forth priority and order allocation procedures with respect to options issues designated for trading on PCX Plus. Due to the elimination of the POETS system, the Exchange proposes to modify PCX Rule 6.75(a) and (e)-(f) to apply only to orders executed by open outcry. In making this modification, the Exchange proposes to delete PCX Rule 6.75(d) as it relates to opening rotations, which is no longer applicable in the PCX Plus market structure. The Exchange also proposes to delete Commentary .01-.03 as these commentaries relate to OBOs handling orders for purposes of priority and order allocation, which is no longer applicable. Finally, the Exchange proposes to modify PCX Rule 6.76 and retain its provisions regarding priority and allocation procedures for orders executed on PCX Plus only. f. Maximum Order Size Currently, in addition to provisions regarding priority and allocation procedures, PCX Rule 6.76 states that a maximum size of an inbound order that may be eligible for execution on PCX Plus will be initially established by the Lead Market Maker (“LMM”) in the issue, subject to the approval of the Exchange. Further, the rule states that any request by the LMM for changes to the Maximum Order Size must be accompanied by a verified statement indicating the business reason for the change and the estimated duration of such change. In addition, PCX Rule 6.90 sets forth a prohibition against unbundling an order to circumvent the maximum order size requirement. PCX Rules 10.12(h)(33) and (k)(i)(33) establishes minor rule plan violations for such prohibited actions. In POETS, the Exchange was unable to disseminate the size associated with the quote. Therefore, the only way to limit the number of contracts executed electronically was to limit the size of the order for each options issue. As a result of the conversion to PCX Plus, the Market Makers (including LMMs) are able to disseminate a size that they are willing to trade on each individual series. Therefore, a maximum order size that covers an entire issue is no longer necessary in the current PCX Plus market structure. As such, the Exchange proposes to delete the requirement for a maximum order size in PCX Rule 6.76. In addition, the related provisions in PCX Rules 6.90 and 10.12 with respect to the prohibition on unbundling an order to circumvent the maximum order size and the minor rule plan violation are ineffectual and should be deleted. g. Miscellaneous The Exchange also proposes to make various corresponding modifications, including typographical and terminology changes, to its rules in order to update the rules applicable to the current PCX Plus market structure. 2. Statutory Basis The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, 7 in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, 8 in particular, because it is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and to protect investors and the public interest. 7 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). 8 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others The Exchange neither solicited nor received any written comments on the proposed rule change. III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the **Federal Register** or within such longer period

(i)as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii)as to which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will: A. By order approve such proposed rule change; or B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission's Internet comment form ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ); or • Send an e-mail to *rule-comments@sec.gov.* Please include File Number SR-PCX-2005-102 on the subject line. Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-102. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site ( *http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml* ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PCX-2005-102 and should be submitted on or before January 11, 2006. For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority. 9 Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. 9 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12). [FR Doc. E5-7587 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8010-01-P SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Public Federal Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Hearing; Region IX Regulatory Fairness Board The U.S. Small Business Administration

(SBA)Region IX Regulatory Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, January 18, 2006, at 9 a.m. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Small Business Administration, Entrepreneur Center Training Room, 455 Market Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA to receive comments and testimony from small business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions taken by Federal agencies. Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact Gary Marshall, in writing or by fax, in order to be put on the agenda. Gary Marshall, Public Information Officer, SBA, San Francisco District Office, 455 Market Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, phone

(415)744-6771, fax

(415)744-6812, e-mail: *Gary.marshall@sba.gov.* For more information, see our Web site at *http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.* Matthew K. Becker, Committee Management Officer. [FR Doc. E5-7595 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5252] Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Dada” SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, *et seq.* ; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, *et seq.* ), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Dada,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with foreign lenders. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC from on or about February 19, 2006, to on or about May 14, 2006, and the Museum of Modern Art, New York, NY, from on or about June 18, 2006, to on or about September 11, 2006, and at possible additional venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the **Federal Register** . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julianne Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/453-8049). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. Dated: December 12, 2005. C. Miller Crouch, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E5-7616 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-05-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5219] Announcement of Meetings of the International Telecommunication Advisory Committee SUMMARY: The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee announces meetings to prepare for the 2006 International Telecommunication Union

(ITU)Plenipotentiary Conference and the 2006 ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference. The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee

(ITAC)will meet on each Tuesday 2-4 p.m. during January and February starting January 11, 2006 to prepare for the 2006 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. The meetings will be held at the offices of AT&T, 1120 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC. A conference bridge will be provided. Directions to the venue of the meeting may be obtained from Julian Minard, *minardje@state.gov* . The International Telecommunication Advisory Committee

(ITAC)will meet on each Wednesday 2-4 p.m. during January and February starting January 12, 2006 to prepare for the 2006 ITU Telecommunication Development Conference. A conference bridge will be provided. Directions to the venue of the meeting may be obtained from Julian Minard, *minardje@state.gov* . Dated: December 8, 2005. Anne Jillson, Foreign Affairs Officer, International Communications & Information Policy, Department of State. [FR Doc. E5-7615 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-07-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5218] Overseas Schools Advisory Council Notice of Meeting The Overseas Schools Advisory Council, Department of State, will hold its Executive Committee Meeting on Thursday, January 19, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Conference Room 1105, Department of State Building, 2201 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is open to the public. The Overseas Schools Advisory Council works closely with the U.S. business community in improving those American-sponsored schools overseas, which are assisted by the Department of State and which are attended by dependents of U.S. Government families and children of employees of U.S. corporations and foundations abroad. This meeting will deal with issues related to the work and the support provided by the Overseas Schools Advisory Council to the American-sponsored overseas schools. The agenda includes a review of the recent activities of American-sponsored overseas schools and the overseas schools regional associations, a review of projects selected for the 2004 and 2005 Educational Assistance Programs, which are under development, and selection of projects for the 2006 Educational Assistance Program. Members of the general public may attend the meeting and join in the discussion, subject to the instructions of the Chair. Admittance of public members will be limited to the seating available. Access to the State Department is controlled, and individual building passes are required for all attendees. Persons who plan to attend should so advise the office of Dr. Keith D. Miller, Department of State, Office of Overseas Schools, Room H328, SA-1, Washington, DC 20522-0132, telephone 202-261-8200, prior to January 9, 2006. Each visitor will be asked to provide his/her date of birth and Social Security number at the time of registration and attendance and must carry a valid photo ID to the meeting. All attendees must use the C Street entrance to the building. Dated: December 14, 2005. Keith D. Miller, Executive Secretary, Overseas Schools Advisory Council, Department of State. [FR Doc. E5-7614 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-24-P DEPARTMENT OF STATE [Public Notice 5217] Overseas Security Advisory Council

(OSAC)Meeting Notice; Closed Meeting The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department—Overseas Security Advisory Council on January 10 and 11, 2006 at the Boeing Company in Arlington, Virginia. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b[c][4], it has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. The meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies and procedures and will involve extensive discussion of proprietary commercial and financial information that is considered privileged and confidential. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a global threat overview, and other matters relating to private sector security policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. business information overseas. For more information, contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone: 571-345-2214. Dated: December 5, 2005. Joe D. Morton, Director of the Diplomatic Security Service, Department of State. [FR Doc. E5-7613 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-43-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed the Week Ending December 2, 2005 The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under sections 412 and 414 of the Federal Aviation Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1382 and 1384) and procedures governing proceedings to enforce these provisions. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application. *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23186. *Date Filed:* November 29, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC23/TC123 Africa-South Asian Subcontinent, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0279). TC23/TC123 Africa-Japan, Korea, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0280). TC23/TC123 Africa-South East Asia, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0281). Minutes: TC23 Africa, Middle East-TC3, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005 (Memo 0287). Tables: TC23/TC123 Africa-South Asian Subcontinent, Specified Fare Tables, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0127). TC23/TC123 Africa-Japan, Korea, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0128). TC23/TC123 Africa-South East Asia, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0129). Technical Correction: TC23/TC123 Africa-Japan, Korea, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0286). *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23204. *Date Filed:* December 1, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC23/TC123 Africa TC3, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006. Minutes: TC23 Africa, Middle East-TC3, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005. (Memo 0287). *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23205. *Date Filed:* December 1, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC23/TC123 Middle East TC3, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0247). Minutes: TC23 Africa, Middle East-TC3, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005, (Memo 0266). *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23206. *Date Filed:* December 1, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC23/TC123 Mail Vote 459 between Middle East and South East Asia, Geneva, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0253). Technical Correction: TC23/TC123 Mail Vote 459, between Middle East and South East Asia, Geneva, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0257). *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23207. *Date Filed:* December 1, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC23/TC123 Mail Vote 460 between Africa and South West Pacific except between South Africa and Australia, Geneva, September 15-16, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006. *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23208. *Date Filed:* December 1, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC31 Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference, Bangkok, September 21 through November 1, 2005, TC3 (except Japan)—North America, Caribbean (except Korea (Rep. of), Malaysia—USA), Expedited Resolution 002bj, Intended effective date: January 15, 2006. *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23217. *Date Filed:* December 1, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC23 Mail Vote 463 between Europe and South Asian Subcontinent, Geneva & Teleconference, September 15-16, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0142). Tables: TC23 Europe SASC Geneva and Teleconference, September 15-16, 2005 (Memo 0067), Specified Fare Tables, Technical Correction: TC23 Europe SASC, Geneva and Teleconference, September 15-16, 2005 (Memo 0068). *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23218. *Date Filed:* December 1, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC23/TC123 Mail Vote 461 between South Africa and Australia, Geneva, September 15-16, 2005 (Memo 0283), Intended effective date: April 1, 2006. *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23228. *Date Filed:* December 2, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC2 Within Europe, Geneva, October 10-13, 2005 (Memo 0617), Minutes: TC2 Within Europe, Geneva, October 10-13 (Memo 0619), Tables: TC2 Within Europe/Specified Fare Tables, Geneva, October 10-13 (Memo 0124), Technical Correction: TC2 Within Europe, Geneva, October 10-13 (Memo 0618), Intended effective date: March 1, 2006. *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23229. *Date Filed:* December 2, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC31 Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference, Bangkok, September 21 through November 1, 2005, TC3 Central, South America Expedited Resolution, 002bs (Memo 0340), Intended effective date: January 15, 2006. *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23230. *Date Filed:* December 2, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC31 North and Central Pacific, Bangkok, October 24 through November 1, 2005, TC3 (except Japan)—North America, Caribbean (except between Korea (Rep. of), Malaysia—USA), Expedited Resolution 002bk (Memo 0342), Intended effective date: March 30, 2006. *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23231. *Date Filed:* December 2, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* PAC2 dated November 4, 2005, Mail Vote Number A 126, Extension of Resolution 814hh to Cyprus, Intended effective date: February 1, 2006. *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23232. *Date Filed:* December 2, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC31 North and Central Pacific, Bangkok, October 24 through November 1, 2005, Korea (Rep. of), Malaysia—USA Expedited Resolution, 002nn (Memo 0343), Intended effective date: March 30, 2006. *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23233. *Date Filed:* December 2, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* PTC COMP Mail Vote 470, Resolution 011 Section D and 011b, Mileages and Routes for Tariff Purposes and Global Indicator, Intended effective date: January 15, 2006. *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23234. *Date Filed:* December 2, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC23/TC123 Middle East-South Asian Subcontinent, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14, 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0248). TC23 Middle East-South West Pacific, Geneva & Teleconference, September 12-14 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0249). TC23/TC123 Middle East-Japan, Korea, Geneva & Teleconference, 12-14 September 2005, Intended Effective Date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0250). Fares: PTC23/TC123 Middle East-Asia, Specified Fares Tables (Memo 0116), Minutes: TC23/TC123 Middle East-Japan, Korea, Geneva & Teleconference, 12-14 September 2005, Intended effective date: April 1, 2006 (Memo 0266). *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23235. *Date Filed:* December 2, 2005. *Parties:* Members of the International Air Transport Association. *Subject:* TC23/123 Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conferences, Geneva and Teleconference, September 26-28, 2005, TC23/123 Europe-South East Asia (Memo 0215), Intended Effective Date: April 1, 2006. Technical: Correction TC23/TC123 Passenger Tariff Coordinating Conference, Geneva and Teleconference, September 26-28, 2005, TC23/123 Europe-South East Asia Resolutions, (Memo 222), Minutes: TC23/123 Europe-South East Asia Minutes (0223), Tables: TC23/123 Europe-South East Asia specified Fares Tables (Memo 0068). Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E5-7597 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-62-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B (Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending December 2, 2005 The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under subpart B (formerly subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 *et. seq.* ). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further proceedings. *Docket Number:* OST-2005-23220. *Date Filed:* December 1, 2005. *Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify Scope:* December 22, 2005. *Description:* Application of Flair Airlines Ltd. requesting a foreign air carrier permit authorizing it to engage in charter foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail between Canada and the United States and other charters between third countries and the United States. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison. [FR Doc. E5-7598 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-62-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Privacy Act of 1974: System of Records AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice to modify a system of records. SUMMARY: DOT proposes to modify an existing system of records under the Privacy Act of 1974. An additional purpose for the system has been added to provide users of the system with investigation information. A routine use has been added to provide for the use and public posting of investigation results. DATES: *Effective Date:* This notice will be effective, without further notice, on January 30, 2006, unless modified by a subsequent notice to incorporate comments received by the public. Comments must be received by January 20, 2006 to be assured consideration. ADDRESSES: Send comments to Kara Spooner, Departmental Privacy Officer, United States Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 6106, Washington, DC 20590 or *Kara.Spooner@dot.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Zinser, Deputy Inspector General, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-6767 (voice), 202-366-3912 (fax), or *Todd.J.Zinser@oig.dot.gov* (e-mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Transportation system of records notice subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, has been published in the **Federal Register** and is available from the above mentioned address. System Number: DOT/OST 101. System Name: Transportation Inspector General Reporting System, TIGR. Security Classification: Sensitive, unclassified. System Location: This system of record is in the Office of the Inspector General in the Office of the Secretary, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Categories of Individuals Covered by the System of Records: All active employees of the OIG, with history data on previous employees maintained for 2 years. Present and former DOT employees, DOT contractors and employees as well as grantees, subgrantees, contractors, subcontractors and their employees and recipients of DOT monies, and other individuals or incidents subject to investigation within the purview of the Inspector General Act. Categories of records in the system: Individual's current position and employment status, assignments, travel, experience, training, with the following personal data: Name, social security account number, date of birth, service computation date, career status, address, assigned station, job series, education, grade, minority status, and personnel transaction date. Investigative information consists of investigation targets' name and social security account number, organization name, type of investigation, offense data, source of referral data and action taken. Authority for maintenance of the system: Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. Purposes: The purpose of the system is to provide individuals with a need to know with specific information related to

(1)Time and attendance of employees;

(2)workload status reports;

(3)security clearance alerts;

(4)travel information; and

(5)investigation information. The Inspector General publishes some investigation results publicly through a public Web site, in combination with investigation results of other agencies and organizations, in an effort to coordinate fraud enforcement and investigation efforts with other entities. Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

(1)Security clearance notification alerts may be provided to an examined activity in advance of visits by OIG personnel if information to be examined requires a secret clearance or above;

(2)time and attendance reports will be used to track temporary duty travel frequency and duration, to categorize indirect time for periodic reports, and to accrue staff hour data on assigned projects;

(3)planned annual leave reporting will be used by various managers for workload planning and travel scheduling;

(4)assignments information and workload status information will be used by managers to control audits and investigations, and to maximize effectiveness of staff resources;

(5)miscellaneous personnel information will be used by staff managers to determine training needs, promotional eligibility, education and background, and professional organization participation;

(6)information will be used to produce resource management reports;

(7)travel information will be used by managers to control temporary duty travel, travel costs and issuances of travel orders; and

(8)investigative information is collected and maintained in the administration of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-452) to investigate, prevent, and detect fraud and abuse in departmental programs and operations. Material gathered is used for investigative case management, and some investigation information is posted publicly in an effort to reduce fraud and other crimes across the government. See also Prefatory Statement of General Routine Uses. Disclosure to Consumer Reporting Agencies: None. Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage: Active reports on magnetic disk, with backup active records and inactive records maintained on magnetic tape. Retrievability: Records will be retrievable through employee social security number, by name, or incident title, with selected records having certain secondary keys consisting of certain other data elements, listed in the “Categories of Records in the System.” Safeguards:

(1)Records will be maintained in a private library not accessible by any unauthorized user;

(2)authorized user identification codes will be tied to multiple password system to afford additional protection;

(3)any attempt to bypass the password protection system will result in “Log-Off” from the system or denial of access to data if access to system is authorized;

(4)physical access to system documentation, hardcopy printouts, personal data files, and terminals will be restricted to authorized personnel by maintaining a secure environment in the headquarters office; and

(5)tape files will be maintained in an environmentally secure vault area when not in use. Retention and Disposal: Records will be maintained for 2 years after they become inactive. All inactive records will be maintained on magnetic tape within the computer center and will be afforded the same safeguards as active records. Machine-resident records will be destroyed at the end of the 2-year period. Hard copy records will be retained until the records are replaced or become obsolete. System manager and address: Chief Information Officer, JM-10, Office of Inspector General, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Room 7117, Washington, DC 20590. Notification procedure: Same as “System Manager.” Record access procedures: Same as “System Manager.” Contesting record procedures: Same as “System Manager.” Record source categories:

(1)Official personnel folder;

(2)other personnel documents;

(3)activity supervisors;

(4)individual applications and forms; and

(5)information obtained from interviews, review of records and other authorized investigative techniques. Exemptions claimed for the system: Investigative data compiled for law enforcement purposes may be exempt from the access provisions pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), (k)(1), or (k)(2). Dated: November 28, 2005. Kara Spooner, Departmental Privacy Officer. [FR Doc. E5-7599 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-62-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration First Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 207/Airport Security Access Control Systems AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 207 Meeting, Airport Security Access Control Systems. SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 207, Airport Security Access Control Systems. DATES: The meeting will be held January 18-19, 2006, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., MacIntosh-NBAA & Hilton-ATA Rooms, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

(1)RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone

(202)833-9339; fax

(202)833-9434; Web site *http://www.rtca.org.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 207 meeting. The agenda will include: • January 18: • Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, Introductions, and Administrative Remarks) • Agenda Overview • Workgroup Reports • Workgroup 2 • Workgroup 3 • Workgroup 4 • Workgroup 5 • Workgroup 6 • Workgroup 7 • ICAO Update • Discussions on vendor presentations—guidelines are as follows: The vendor/product categories sought are under Access Control, Perimeter Intrusion Detection, Biometric Systems/Devices, and Credentialing of employees. Each vendor seeking to present a short (maximum of 15 minutes) presentation to the committee members, will provide the briefing package, slides and supporting documents to Mr. Paul S. Ruwaldt ( *paul.ruwaldt@dhs.gov* or *paul.s.ruwaldt@tc.faa.gov* ) by January 4th, 2006, outlining the following: • If the product is an access control system, sub-system or component of or could be applied to an airport access control system, the vendor is required to submit documentation, in written form, attesting to their understanding of the current DO-230A Airport Access Control Standard requirements and a description of how their product, system, sub-system or component complies with this current standard (this document will be inclusive of how their product(s) would be utilized in an automated access control system suitable for use under the requirements included in 49 CFR subpart 1500 et al.). • How their product(s) would provide for (or enhance) the security objectives of the airport, and • How their product(s) would be integrated into an airport comprehensive security system. It is strongly suggested that the vendors requesting presentation time be fully cognizant of the airline and airport operational requirements as they apply to automated access control systems, perimeter intrusion detection, biometric system applications and credentialing application of employees, as well as the performance requirements of DO-230A and how their product(s) will interface, integrate or fuse

(data)with automated access control systems. Further, it is suggested that the vendor by fully aware of how these operational and performance conditions will affect their product(s) and the access control procedures. In addition, for those products or systems incorporating biometrics, specific reference and discussions will address the Biometric Guidance Package released and approved by the TSA this year. The vendor presentation must strictly be pertinent to their product(s) and the relevant 49 CFR subpart 1500 et al. requirements for airport access control systems. The vendor must demonstrate their product's suitability to airline and airport operational access control conditions and illustrate how their product(s) would be deployed in automated access control systems and/or how their product(s) can be integrated into the automated access control systems. The SC-207 committee emphasizes that this RTCA standard pertains only to airport access control systems, although there may be opportunities for future integration with other airport and federal information and/or communication technologies. Further, the committee is interested in proven and available COTS technologies and/or products. The committee is not interested in yet untested, developmental concepts, representative products, systems or sub-systems or proprietary systems. The vendors making presentations will be required to provide a soft copies of the material they wish to present to the committee. No material save that provided by the vendor by the 5th of January 2006 will be accepted or received by the Committee during the presentation on January 18th & 19th, 2006. The presentations provided by the vendors will be collected and made available to the committee members in CD format on the day of the presentation. It is expected that there will be only a limited presentation opportunity on these two days. Reservations will be made on a first come first served basis. The Vendor should contact Mr. Ruwaldt via email to express interest in presenting. Once Mr. Ruwaldt receives the material, he will schedule the vendor's presentation time and date. All material must be received before this scheduling can take place. If the presentation schedule is full for these two days, following consultation with the SC-207 Chairman, an additional presentation date in March could be allocated, however all vendors should not rely on this, and attempt to develop and provide their product(s) presentations as early as possible. SC-207, in its deliberations for the updated standard DO-230B, is considering requiring that the products, systems, sub-systems and components utilized within airport access control systems, inclusive of perimeter, biometric intrusion detection and surveillance functions should be tested and verified to the requirements defined within the proposed DO-230B Standard. Any such decision, including the identification of a responsible authority for conducting such verifications (or potential certification of products) will be taken before the final issuance of DO-230B. • Closing Plenary Session (Other Business, Establish Agenda, Date and Place for Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Meeting). Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time. Issued in Washington, DC, on December 14, 2005. Natalie Ogletree, FAA General Engineer, RTCA Advisory Committee. [FR Doc. 05-24320 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45am]

Connectionstraces to 15

Traces to 15 documents

U.S. Code